Unpacking the Quantum Universe: God's Knowledge and the Role of Observations

[wimms]

Originally posted by FZ+
I was answering for Alexander... sort of. The point is that there is not material which they reacts, but that laws exist (or are randomly evolved) which force what we consider as material to come into existence.

Well, still same problem. 'that laws exist' - those 'laws' are what we call logic of universe, 'truth table' if you like. Yes, they are here. WHY? -> "stupid question". They are searched, found and defined, but not explained.

And, that 'which force what we consider as material to come into existence', is what? god of quantum universe?

But now we enter into the realms of the truly pedantic. Why should the real logic change randomly?

Equally valid question is 'Why should the real logic (laws) stay unchanged?'. Preference to either is given by our faith. We prefer that logic stays same, because it allows us to describe it with our consistent math. It happens to be more likely by observation, but there isn't any good reason why should there exist Any physics Law at All.

And if it does, how would we know? How do we know the deep logic stays the same, everywhere? We assume that, but I dare say it would be tough to confirm that...

Well, we have telescopes, observable range of billions of lightyears, and what we see is that its same stuff everywhere. Thats pretty much enough for us. If laws changed randomly, it'd be immediately apparent in any proximity. There are too many possibilities that lead only to chaos, and only very few that lead to stable systems. If laws were randomly changing, it would take enormously long time to 'phase-lock' to something meaningful during periods with lack of any meaning. That is still possible, but then it would need to open whole new scale below Planck physics, and QM would be like 'casual snapshot image' ontop of something completely uncomprehensible, that would escape any attempts of description in frame of any logic or math. That would be more or less deadend for science.

But even completely random laws and logic would make us ask 'Why is the real logic changing randomly?' Any attempt to describe all of existence will always step onto something that cannot be explained.

Without any specifics of religious properties attached, concept of god encodes that which cannot be explained in principle, ultimate axiom, reason behind it all. As Alex has been pointing out, history of god came from unexplained, and got unbelieveably crazy properties in imagination of man. Science has continuously moved realm of god further away. In my view, science hasn't disproved god, but instead heavily redefined it into extremely impersonal, logical, fair and indifferent to any single pion in this universe, that which creates world without actually creating anything. Religions have heavy inertia, that's why they are called dogmas.

I don't care about proof or disproof of god, my mind is open for both. But I'll never write it with capitals, or call it 'him', or bang my head or pray to it. If it doesn't like that, it may go to hell itself. So, although I don't reject concept of god, I have no respect to any variant of religion (besides that of my own perhaps )

Originally posted by Alexander
I wonder, if logic (and thus math)is even more fundamental than anything. Indeed, even "nothingness" can be labeled by logical/mathematical symbol (say, as "0" or as "none" or "-").

I believe so. But we can't mix all meanings with same short word logic. There is internal logic of interactions in universe - laws. There is logic of aristoteles, that we use to validate internal consistency, there is math as language to describe nature. They are all somewhat different.

I would not agree that math or aristoteles logic is fundamental to existence, they are our tools. Internal logic of universe is real, but isn't necessarily same as our human logic or math. It may be wildly different from boolean. What makes it possible to describe it by math then? Fact that its also internally consistent.

I assume that any internally consistent logical system is able to describe any other internally consistent physical system, somehow, despite that they might be based on absolutely different foundations. Internal consistency of both is like equation sign. Still, interpretations might differ enormously depending on logical system used, as well as complexity of descriptions.

What puzzles me at times, is that while we explain nature, we move towards more and more fundamental 'things'. But Fundamentals is supposed to be more basic simplicities. Instead, the deeper we delve into QM, the more complex it all gets. Isn't this a sign of using wrong tools against simple things? Or approaching uncomprehensible?

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by wimms
Well, still same problem. 'that laws exist' - those 'laws' are what we call logic of universe, 'truth table' if you like. Yes, they are here. WHY? -> "stupid question". They are searched, found and defined, but not explained.

I think they are explained. My understanding is that these laws follow from the way we define physical quantities. Notice that all quantities are related, or mathematically entangled - they can be reduced back to(=defined from) 3-4 basic quantities (space, time, mass, charge). Let's called derivative quantities (quantities which are defined via basic quantities) as "compound" quantities. So, what we have is a some object (universe) in which we can observe measurable quantities and they all are related to each other by big "truth table of mutual definitions".

Thus "compound" quantities simply can not behave in a way non-compliant with their definition (= reduction to basic quantities). When some quantity is "too compound" and relation to original basic quantities is too long (more than 2-3 definitions away), then we just too lazy to trace that and say "energy conserves by definition of energy in a symmetric time", but instead say that this is the "law of nature", or that "nature behaves this way" or simply "Gog made it this way" (pick any you like most).

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Alexander
I think they are explained. My understanding is that these laws follow from the way we define physical quantities. Notice that all quantities are related, or mathematically entangled - they can be reduced back to(=defined from) 3-4 basic quantities (space, time, mass, charge). Let's called derivative quantities (quantities which are defined via basic quantities) as "compound" quantities. So, what we have is a some object (universe) in which we can observe measurable quantities and they all are related to each other by big "truth table of mutual definitions".

Again , back-and-forth we jump, run in circles, etc. We either define properties of quantities (matter) and derive laws (logic), or we define laws and derive properties. In any case, we don't create anything by defining, we merely describe that which already IS. By jumping between these 'explanations', we are simply comforting from circular reasoning. Please don't assume I'm arguing with your facts, but please just notice how much you use constatation of facts, 'we define', 'are related', 'what we have'.. This is all nifty modelling, but doesn't anywhere explain why there is something instead of nothing at all, in terms of properties, relations, etc.

Now that you've pointed out "compound" quantities, let me clarify realm I'm talking about - its not that of 'compound', but that below - basic quantities, laws, entanglement, relations. We know they are here, we find and describe them, but we don't know why they are here or why they are related in this or that manner. Every attempt to explain them will hit either selfreferential or would require something more fundamental.

There exists no theory of existence that has NO axioms, implicit or hidden. It's what underlies reasons for those axioms (if true) that is perpetual vacancy for god. And science is constantly pushing that border down to ever more fundamental, but it'll never get quite there, for every step we make is colored by bunch of axioms we rely upon, "big truth table of mutual axioms"...

When science will someday get to the limits, there will be bunch of axioms, and mathmatical relations between them, that together are 'creating' all of the universe. And that would be precise scientific 'definition' of god. whatelse?

Thus "compound" quantities simply can not behave in a way non-compliant with their definition (= reduction to basic quantities). When some quantity is "too compound" and relation to original basic quantities is too long (more than 2-3 definitions away), then we just too lazy to trace that and say "energy conserves by definition of energy in a symmetric time", but instead say that this is the "law of nature", or that "nature behaves this way" or simply "Gog made it this way" (pick any you like most).

Yes, I understand perfectly that there is no place for god to suddenly change properties of 'compound' quantitites, and that it doesn't govern how our everyday life goes. But something, that is behind "big truth table of mutual definitions" of basic quantities, can certainly screw it up real bad. We don't know why it doesn't. We define it doesn't.

 

[Alexander]

What we OBSERVE is that some quantities (time, space, angle, velocity, phase, and some others) are defined by US in such way that change in them does not affect anything. That is what we get from OBSERVATIONS. Mathematical consequences of this independence (=invariance) of universe on some quantities is interesting: all conservation laws, both relativities, quantum mechanics, existence of virtual particles and all known forces follow mathematically. And we call these mathematical consequences of basic symmetries as "natural laws" and "natural phenomena".

So, main premises to derive practically all we see is that that some quantities (like time, space, direction, velocity, phase, etc) are completely immaterial for universe, kinda "nonexistent" (or "non-physical") quantities.